Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GLASER B. Question To Stella and Judd
GLASER B. Question To Stella and Judd
ing of the 20s and 30s had. He is part of a continuous development from the 30s, and he was doing it himself then.
STELLA: The other thing is that the European geometric
painters really strive for what I call relational painting. The
basis of their whole idea is balance. You do something in
one corner and you balance it with something in the other
corner. Now the new painting is being characterized as
symmetrical. Ken Noland has put things in the center and Ill
use a symmetrical pattern, but we use symmetry in a different way. Its nonrelational. In the newer American painting
we strive to get the thing in the middle, and symmetrical, but
just to get a kind of force, just to get the thing on the canvas.
The balance factor isnt important. Were not trying to
jockey everything around.
GLASER: What is the thing youre getting on the canvas?
STELLA: I guess youd have to describe it as the image, either the image or the scheme. Ken Noland would use concentric circles; hed want to get them in the middle because
its the easiest way to get them there, and he wants them
there in the front, on the surface of the canvas. If youre that
much involved with the surface of anything, youre bound to
find symmetry the most natural means. As soon as you use
any kind of relational placement for symmetry, you get into
a terrible kind of fussiness, which is the one thing that most
of the painters now want to avoid. When youre always making these delicate balances, it seems to present too many
problems; it becomes sort of arch.
GLASER: An artist who works in your vein has said he finds
symmetry extraordinarily sensuous; on the other hand, Ive
heard the comment that symmetry is very austere. Are you
trying to create a sensuous or an austere effect? Is this relevant to your surfaces?
GLASER: And you mean to say that your work is apart from
rationalism?
JUDD: Yes. All that art is based on systems built beforehand,
a priori systems; they express a certain type of thinking and
logic that is pretty much discredited now as a way of finding
out what the worlds like.
GLASER: Discredited by whom? By empiricists?
JUDD: Scientists, both philosophers and scientists.
GLASER: What is the alternative to a rationalistic system in
your method? Its often said that your work is preconceived,
that you plan it out before you do it. Isnt that a rationalistic
method?
JUDD: Not necessarily. Thats much smaller. When you
think it out as you work on it, or you think it out beforehand,
its a much smaller problem than the nature of the work.
What you want to express is a much bigger thing than how
you may go at it. Larry Poons works out the dots somewhat
as he goes along; he figures out a scheme beforehand and
also makes changes as he goes along. Obviously I cant
make many changes, though I do what I can when I get
stuck.
GLASER: In other words, you might be referring to an antirationalist position before you actually start making the work
of art.
JUDD: Im making it for a quality that I think is interesting
and more or less true. And the quality involved in Vasarelys
kind of composition isnt true to me.
GLASER: Could you be specific about how your own work
reflects an antirationalistic point of view?
JUDD: The parts are unrelational.
GLASER: If theres nothing to relate, then you cant be rational about it because its just there?
JUDD: Yes.
GLASER: Then its almost an abdication of logical thinking.
logic. Thats simple. But when you start relating parts, in the
first place, youre assuming you have a vague wholethe
rectangle of the canvas and definite parts, which is all
screwed up, because you should have a definite whole and
maybe no parts, or very few. The parts are always more important than the whole.
GLASER: And you want the whole to be more important than
the parts?
JUDD: Yes. The wholes it. The big problem is to maintain
the sense of the whole thing.
GLASER: Isnt it that theres no gestation, that theres just an
idea?
JUDD: I do think about it, Ill change it if I can. I just want it
to exist as a whole thing. And thats not especially unusual.
Paintings been going toward that for a long time. A lot of
people, like Oldenburg for instance, have a whole effect to
their work.
STELLA: But were all still left with structural or compositional elements. The problems arent any different. I still
have to compose a picture, and if you make an object you
have to organize the structure. I dont think our work is that
radical in any sense because you dont find any really new
compositional or structural element. I dont know if that exists. Its like the idea of a color you havent seen before.
Does something exist thats as radical as a diagonal thats
not a diagonal? Or a straight line or a compositional element
that you cant describe?
GLASER: So even your efforts, Don, to get away from European art and its traditional compositional effects, is somewhat limited because youre still going to be using the same
basic elements that they used.
JUDD: No, I dont think so. Im totally uninterested in European art and I think its over with. Its not so much the ele-
drawing was less and less necessary. It was the one thing I
wasnt going to do. I wasnt going to draw with the brush.
GLASER: What induced this conclusion that drawing wasnt
necessary any more?
STELLA: Well, you have a brush and youve got paint on the
brush, and you ask yourself why youre doing whatever it is
youre doing, what inflection youre actually going to make
with the brush and with the paint thats on the end of the
brush. Its like handwriting. And I found out that I just didnt
have anything to say in those terms. I didnt want to make
variations; I didnt want to record a path. I wanted to get the
paint out of the can and onto the canvas. I knew a wise guy
who used to make fun of my painting, but he didnt like the
Abstract Expressionists either. He said they would be good
painters if they could only keep the paint as good as it is in
the can. And thats what I tried to do. I tried to keep the paint
as good as it was in the can.
GLASER: Are you implying that you are trying to destroy
painting?
STELLA: Its just that you cant go back. Its not a question
of destroying anything. If somethings used up, somethings
done, somethings over with, whats the point of getting involved with it?
JUDD: Root, hog, or die.
GLASER: Are you suggesting that there are no more solutions to, or no more problems that exist in painting?
STELLA: Well, it seems to me we have problems. When
Morris Louis showed in 1958, everybody (Art News, Tom
Hess) dismissed his work as thin, merely decorative. They
still do. Louis is the really interesting case. In every sense his
instincts were Abstract Expressionist, and he was terribly
involved with all of that, but he felt he had to move, too. I
always get into arguments with people who want to retain
the old values in paintingthe humanistic values that they
always find on the canvas. If you pin them down, they always end up asserting that there is something there besides
the paint on the canvas. My painting is based on the fact that
only what can be seen there is there. It really is an object.
Any painting is an object and anyone who gets involved
enough in this finally has to face up to the objectness of
whatever it is that hes doing. He is making a thing. All that
should be taken for granted. If the painting were lean
enough, accurate enough, or right enough, you would just be
able to look at it. All I want anyone to get out of my paintings, and all I ever get out of them, is the fact that you can
see the whole idea without any confusion.... What you see is
what you see.
GLASER: That doesnt leave too much afterwards, does it?
STELLA: I dont know what else there is. Its really something if you can get a visual sensation that is pleasurable, or
worth looking at, or enjoyable, if you can just make something worth looking at.
GLASER: But some would claim that the visual effect is
minimal, that youre just giving us one color or a symmetrical grouping of lines. A nineteenth-century landscape painting would presumably offer more pleasure, simply because
its more complicated.
JUDD: I dont think its more complicated.
STELLA: No, because what youre saying essentially is that a
nineteenth-century landscape is more complicated because
there are two things workingdeep space and the way its
painted. You can see how its done and read the figures in
the space. Then take Ken Nolands painting, for example,
which is just a few stains on the ground. If you want to look
at the depths, there are just as many problematic spaces. And
some of them are extremely complicated technically; you
can worry and wonder how he painted the way he did.
Yves Kleins exhibition, Iris Clert Gallery, Paris, April, 1958, consisted
of an empty, white-walled gallery.
way.
STELLA: I dont paint around the edge; Rothko does, so do a
what Ive done, as you said. Art is something you look at.
GLASER: You have made the point that you definitely want
to induce some effective enjoyment in your work, Frank. But
the fact is that right now the majority of people confronted
by it seem to have trouble in this regard. They dont get this
enjoyment that you seem to be very simply presenting to
them. That is, they are still stunned and taken aback by its
simplicity. Is this because they are not ready for these works,
because they simply havent caught up to the artist again?
STELLA: Maybe thats the quality of simplicity. When Mantle hits the ball out of the park, everybody is sort of stunned
for a minute because its so simple. He knocks it right out of
the park, and that usually does it.
Frank Stella: Sanbornville Ill. 1966. Fluorescent alkyd and epoxy paint
on canvas. 104 x 146.
Donald Judd: Untitled. 1965. Red lacquer on galvanized iron 5 x 251/2 x 81/2
10